[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1303?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13843295#comment-13843295
 ] 

Ari Najarian commented on COUCHDB-1303:
---------------------------------------

Thanks, all, for revisiting this discussion.

Just so I'm clear, what Benjamin is proposing (the wrapper for _bulk_docs) 
would still require some kind of middleware in order to 'prepare' the list of 
documents to send, correct? I'd likely have to get client-side JS / Node / 
Lasso / PHP / whatever to query ddoc/_view/viewname?include_docs=true, grab 
those results, and pipe them into this update wrapper.

Is there a design reason why piping a view directly into the wrapper wouldn't 
work? If it's technically feasible, this would cut down on the round-trips to 
the server (and latency, and bandwidth usage, and overall throughput between 
CouchDB and the client). It also means less code in less places for developers 
(like me!).

> Add a _bulk_update handler similar to _update but for bulk document changes
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: COUCHDB-1303
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1303
>             Project: CouchDB
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>            Reporter: Benjamin Young
>              Labels: api, update_request_handler
>
> _update handlers are great (and getting better!) for building RESTful API's 
> inside CouchDB. One limitation I found tonight is that _update can only do a 
> single document at a time. If the API I'm building needs to update multiple 
> docs (in a similar fashion to _bulk_docs), then an outside "proxy" script is 
> required. It would be ideal to have a _bulk_update handler to allow for the 
> same functionality as _update, but with the ability to insert multiple 
> documents at once.
> Perhaps the current _update handler API could be extended to support multiple 
> IDs/documents, but a separate API endpoint would be seem reasonable if needed.
> Thanks for considering this idea.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.4#6159)

Reply via email to